Roni Nitecki1, Jessica Floyd, Kelly Lamiman, Mark A Clapp, Shuangshuang Fu, Kirsten Jorgensen, Alexander Melamed, Paula C Brady, Anjali Kaimal, Marcela G Del Carmen, Terri L Woodard, Larissa A Meyer, Sharon H Giordano, Pedro T Ramirez, J Alejandro Rauh-Hain. 1. Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, the Department of Health Services Research, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences, and the Department of Breast Medical Oncology, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas; the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas; the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts; and the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, and the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes of the first pregnancy after fertility-sparing surgery in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. METHODS: We performed a population-based study of women aged 18-45 years with a history of stage I cervical cancer reported to the 2000-2012 California Cancer Registry. Data were linked to the OSHPD (California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development) birth and discharge data sets. We included patients with cervical cancer who conceived at least 3 months after a fertility-sparing surgery, which included cervical conization or loop electrosurgical excision procedure. Those undergoing trachelectomy were excluded. The primary outcome was preterm birth. Secondary outcomes included growth restriction, neonatal morbidity, stillbirth, cesarean delivery, and severe maternal morbidity. We used propensity scores to match similar women from two groups in a 1:2 ratio of case group participants to control group participants: population individuals without cancer and individuals with cervical cancer (women who delivered before their cervical cancer diagnosis). Wald statistics and logistic regressions were used to evaluate outcomes. RESULTS: Of 4,087 patients with cervical cancer, 118 (2.9%) conceived after fertility-sparing surgery, and 107 met inclusion criteria and were matched to control group participants. Squamous cell carcinoma was the most common histology (63.2%), followed by adenocarcinoma (30.8%). Patients in the case group had higher odds of preterm birth before 37 weeks of gestation compared with both control groups (21.5% vs 9.3%, odds ratio [OR] 2.7, 95% CI 1.4-5.1; 21.5% vs 12.7%, OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0-3.6), but not preterm birth before 32 weeks. Neonatal morbidity was more common among the patients in the case group relative to those in the cervical cancer control group (15.9% vs 6.9%, OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.2-5.5). There were no differences in rates of growth restriction, stillbirth, cesarean delivery, and maternal morbidity. CONCLUSION: In a population-based cohort, patients who conceived after surgery for cervical cancer had higher odds of preterm delivery compared with control groups.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes of the first pregnancy after fertility-sparing surgery in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. METHODS: We performed a population-based study of women aged 18-45 years with a history of stage I cervical cancer reported to the 2000-2012 California Cancer Registry. Data were linked to the OSHPD (California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development) birth and discharge data sets. We included patients with cervical cancer who conceived at least 3 months after a fertility-sparing surgery, which included cervical conization or loop electrosurgical excision procedure. Those undergoing trachelectomy were excluded. The primary outcome was preterm birth. Secondary outcomes included growth restriction, neonatal morbidity, stillbirth, cesarean delivery, and severe maternal morbidity. We used propensity scores to match similar women from two groups in a 1:2 ratio of case group participants to control group participants: population individuals without cancer and individuals with cervical cancer (women who delivered before their cervical cancer diagnosis). Wald statistics and logistic regressions were used to evaluate outcomes. RESULTS: Of 4,087 patients with cervical cancer, 118 (2.9%) conceived after fertility-sparing surgery, and 107 met inclusion criteria and were matched to control group participants. Squamous cell carcinoma was the most common histology (63.2%), followed by adenocarcinoma (30.8%). Patients in the case group had higher odds of preterm birth before 37 weeks of gestation compared with both control groups (21.5% vs 9.3%, odds ratio [OR] 2.7, 95% CI 1.4-5.1; 21.5% vs 12.7%, OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0-3.6), but not preterm birth before 32 weeks. Neonatal morbidity was more common among the patients in the case group relative to those in the cervical cancer control group (15.9% vs 6.9%, OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.2-5.5). There were no differences in rates of growth restriction, stillbirth, cesarean delivery, and maternal morbidity. CONCLUSION: In a population-based cohort, patients who conceived after surgery for cervical cancer had higher odds of preterm delivery compared with control groups.
Authors: Shagufta Yasmeen; Patrick S Romano; Michael E Schembri; Janet M Keyzer; William M Gilbert Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Mulubrhan F Mogos; Shams Rahman; Hamisu M Salihu; Abraham A Salinas-Miranda; Dawood H Sultan Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Rosa R Cui; Ling Chen; Ana I Tergas; June Y Hou; Caryn M St Clair; Alfred I Neugut; Cande V Ananth; Dawn L Hershman; Jason D Wright Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: R M Alvarez; I Biliatis; A Rockall; E Papadakou; S A Sohaib; N M deSouza; J Butler; M Nobbenhuis; Djp Barton; J H Shepherd; Tej Ind Journal: BJOG Date: 2018-09-17 Impact factor: 6.531